The Gathering Storm

{1} "The strife of parties, like the agitation of the natural elements, purifies the moral atmosphere, and gives life and vigor and freedom to our institutions; but there are some questions too great, some too small for the exercise of political parties; and we have many duties … which we should come together and discharge …. Without inquiring whether we belong to this or that division of political parties …. "Free public discussions are essential to the health of popular liberty, and the day which finds the public mind reconciled to the secret movements of political parties, will find us far on our way to the slavery of depotism. If good men may meet in secret for good purposes, we can have no assurance that bad men, under the same plausible exterior, will not secretly sap the foundations of public virtue." – Senator Daniel S. Dickinson (D-NY); quoted from "Speeches and Correspondence of Daniel S. Dickinson- Volume 2"; by John R. Dickinson; G.P. Putnam; New York; 1867. There was a time when Daniel Dickinson was one of the most powerful politicians in the United States. Today, he is a footnote in our nation’s history, and while some of the figures he worked closely with – including Presidents Van Buren and Lincoln, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster – are well-known, Dickinson’s life is largely forgotten. Twenty years ago, my friend Marjory Hinman authored the first biography of the small-town, self-educated attorney who became a NYS Judge on what was then known as the Court of Errors (then the highest court in the state); a state senator from the 6th District; NYS Attorney General; NYS Lieutenant Governor; and a US Senator. Hinman noted that most people who walk by the statue of Daniel in front of the courthouse in Binghamton have no idea who he was. Dickinson’s wife, Lydia, is one of three women that my 13-year old daughter views as fascinating, if not a role model. (The other two are Senator Hillary Clinton and Yoko Ono.) She has been doing some research on Lydia, for a possible book, which allows her and I the opportunity to have fun going to places that were significant in Daniel and Lydia’s lives. A while back, I sat in the Commons of a historic village that is found on the way to Ithaca, watching my daughter taking notes from the numerous NYS historical markers there, when two beautiful elderly women approached me. They wanted to know what my daughter was doing with her history book, spiral notebook, and pen during the summer months? When I explained, they asked if it was okay if they bought her an ice cream cone? It confirmed for me that what my daughter was doing was important in the context of community. Later, we sat in a long-abandoned "pioneer" cemetery, next to the graves of Lydia’s parents, and I told my daughter how Daniel had been an often contradictory character. Hinman wrote that he "was a radical, for his States’ Rights proclivities were a little too strong, his adherence to the Constitution a little too unyielding, his expansionist ideas a little too greedy, and his gifts of oratory a little too overpowering." Dickinson was an advocate for the Irish immigrants, and supported Ireland’s struggle against the tyranny of the British, yet he was strongly opposed to Scottish-American activist Fanny Wright. (Ms. Wright was a reformer who, among other things, attempted to buy and emancipate slaves as "freemen," and was a suffragette who advocated the then controversial cause of birth control.) Dickinson was opposed to slavery as an institution, though not because of any enlightened view of African-Americans. And his ignorance about the equality of African-Americans and women, combined with his concerns with the possibility of an actual civil war amongst the states of the Union, resulted in his trying to find a way to maintain the Union at the expense of those he viewed as second-class citizens and slaves. His father-in-law, a country doctor educated at Yale, was a leading abolitionist in this area. I had shown my daughter some of the local "stations" on the underground railroad that Dr. Knapp was associated with. As we sat near Dr. Knapp’s grave, we speculated on what the conversations must have been like when the extended family gathered to celebrate the holidays. {2} "No American, young or old, must ever be denied the right to dissent. No minority must be muzzled. Opinions and protest are the life breathe of democracy – even when it blows heavy. "But I urge you never to dissent merely because someone asks you to, or because someone else does. Please know why you protest. Know what it is you dissent from. And always try when you disagree to offer a choice to the coursethat you disapprove. For dissent and protest must be the recourse of men who, in challenging the existing order, reason their way to a better order." President Lyndon B. Johnson; June 7, 1966. In Daniel Dickinson’s day, the issues were slavery, states’ rights, and conflicts between agrarian versus industrial society. These issues caused fractures in the political parties and created temporary alliances between different interest groups. There were the Hamiltonian "National Republicans," and the Jeffersonian "Democratic Republicans." There were others, including the Liberty Party;the Free Soil; the American Party (aka "Know Nothings"); the Whig party; the Copperheads; and a dozen more. Within the Democratic Party, there were significant divides. The most important was between the conservative democrats, who by no small coincidence were associated with banking interests, who were known as the "Old Hunkers" and the "Hardshells," and the radical branch known as the "Barnburners" and the "Locofocos" (after the newly-invented phosphorus matches, called "loco-focos.") In the days of LBJ’s presidency, the biggest issues were the war in Vietnam, and civil and women’s rights. This country came as close as it ever had to a second civil war in those days. There were violent divisions in the nation, and that included friction between the modern Old Hunkers and the new left Locofocos. The divide was exploited by the dark forces that rose to power under the guise of the Nixon administration. Today, the Nixonian disease has metastasized, and threatens the very Constitution that Daniel Dickinson struggled to defend. The threat is not so much one of a division between groups of states, as between the the Constitution of the United States (including that Bill of Rights), and the non-democratic forces that wish to rule from the shadows of secrecy that Dickinson warned against. There are some Old Hunkers who say that the "radical" democrats today pose a threat to our party unity. They accuse the progressive grass roots democrats of being divisive, because we advocate investing our money and energy into those select campaigns of candidates who reflect our values. Maybe they need to study our history a bit closer. Dickinson was the first politician on the national level to advocate for federal aide to education. I took my daughter to the spot where Daniel and Lydia built one of the first "universities" in this area, one of two in the area that prepared local students to attend the bigger schools in the East. We went to a couple of the local schools where Lydia had taught. And then we went and sat near the water falls, where the teen-aged Daniel Dickinson worked at a cloth & carding factory. We talked about the similarities between Daniel and Lydia’s world, and our own. I told her that in politics, there are always going to be differences of opinions. Those differences can be found within families – including the differences between Dickinson and his father-in-law – and within political parties, and indeed states and nations. But we never fail because we attempt to do the "right thing," be it advocating for individual rights, civil rights, or human rights. We never fail because we take a stance to defend that Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The democratic party is not weakened or damaged by grass roots progressives advocating for an end to the war in Iraq, or for the congress to impeach VP Dick Cheney. But our party – indeed, our nation – is being harmed by Old Hunkers who refuse to do the right thing, no matter if it is because they are too comfortable or too cowardly.

The Last Caucus

In 2002, Robert Caro published the third in his wonderful series of books on Lyndon Johnson. Titled "The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate," it followed "The Path to Power" (1982) and "Means of Ascent" (1990). These are the best books on LBJ, and readers are anticipating the last book in the series, which will cover LBJ as vice president and president. The 43rd chapter of the book on LBJ’s senate career is titled "The Last Caucus" (pages 1035 - 1040). Caro quotes Lady Bird as saying of the senate years, "Those were the happiest twelve years of our lives." Washington insiders had wondered how LBJ would adjust from being one of the most powerful men in the government, to being the vice president? LBJ told them, "Power is where power goes." However, as Caro describes, after the 1960 election, Johnson began to understand that he was leaving the position of power he had loved. In January 1961, before he had formally resigned from the senate and been sworn in as vice president, Johnson began to come up with plans to maintain power in legislative branch, while serving in the executive branch. He describes LBJ as taking the stance "that the Constitution already assigned the Vice President functions in the Senate: to preside over it, and to vote in it in case of a tie…." Johnson attempted to keep an office for himself in Senate Office Building, and to have democrats recognize him as still being the de facto Majority Leader. Even Evans & Novak wrote of this as being an attempt to "breach the constitutional separation of powers by making the Vice President the presiding officer of all the Senate Democrats …." Robert Byrd commented, "Can you imagine that?" and called it "a mistake." Albert Gore stated that they might as well have President Kennedy participate in the senate. Mike Monroney, a friend of LBJ’s, stated that the senate "will lose its power by having a representative of the Executive Branch watching our private caucuses." Hubert Humphrey would say that it "was too much for him to leave that center of power. He was just reluctant to give up those reins." Eventually, President Kennedy would send a message that he recognized "the line of demarcation between the legislative and executive branches of government." LBJ had to recognize it, as well. The House and the Senate needs to make this crystal clear to VP Dick Cheney, too.

Dick Cheney vs the Constitution

Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don't Apply to Him By Justin Rood ABC News Thursday 21 June 2007 "Vice President Dick Cheney has asserted his office is not a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government, and therefore not bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information by government agencies, according to a new letter from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to Cheney. …." The reports of Dick Cheney’s claim that the Office of the Vice President enjoys a unique status that puts it beyond the rules of law has caught many people by surprise. Journalists on CNN and MSNBC reported it as a somewhat humorous curiosity, and focused on the Constitution and jr. high school text books to attempt to define what branch of government the OVP falls under. Of course, there is really no question based upon the definition provided by the Constitution. However, those familiar with Dick Cheney will recall from the "Iran Contra Affair: The Final Report" that then Congressman Cheney displayed a curious lack of familiarity with the Constitution. Cheney accused congress of "abusing its power" when it followed the rule of law regarding placing limits on Reagan’s investment in the Nicaraguan "contras," and stated that "the Constitution mandates the President to be the country’s foreign policy leader." (Excerpts: Majority, Minority Views of Committees; Los Angeles Times; 11-19-87) As John Dean noted, "Contrary to Cheney’s assertion, the Constitution has no such mandate." (Worse Than Watergate; page 182) Dean writes that Cheney’s thinking was formed during the Nixon-Ford years, when he came to resent congressional efforts to reinstate Constitutional oversight to dismantle the "imperial presidency." (pages 181-183) Cheney’s efforts to advance an imperial presidency are closely related to his work in the planning for COG (Continuity of Government) in times of national crisis. We find information on this in James Bamford’s "A Pretext for War." The COG plans predate Cheney, of course; they were began during the early years of the Cold War, when there were rational concerns about running the country if there was a nuclear war between the "super powers." Those plans took on a new life after Reagan was shot, and there was a conflict within the administration regarding who was in charge. To help resolve this conflict, Bamford notes, a secret plan known as the Presidential Successor Support System was devised. It went beyond the COG plans in advocating that a "shadow government" that would be beyond the Constitution would rule the country. Bamford writes: "Given overall responsibility for the secret government was Vice President George H. W. Bush, with Lt. Col. Oliver North, a key player in the Iran-contra scandal …. Among the key players in the shadow government were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and James Woolsey." (page 72) This should provide some insight on Cheney’s outrage when congress investigated the Iran-contra scandals. "The existence of the secret government," Bamford writes, "was so closely held that Congress was completely bypassed, Rather than through legislation, it was created by Top Secret presidential fiat. In fact, Congress would have no role in the new wartime administration. ‘One of the awkward questions we faced,’ said one of the participants, ‘was whether to reconstitute Congress …. It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them.’ When George H. W. Bush was elected president, he continued the program, but with the Cold War over, President Bill Clinton decided to end it." (pages 72-74) Bamford describes how on September 11, 2001, a decision was made to place the "shadow government" in control of the United States of America. Very few people were told about this at the time: "So secret was the decision that no one in Congress – and only Vice President Cheney and a very few within the executive branch – were notified of the establishment of an invisible shadow government." This event is also detailed in Senator Robert Byrd’s "Losing America." The Elder Statesman, who loves the Constitution of the United States, wrote: "Only hours after the September 11 attacks, the administration installed a ‘shadow government’ of about a hundred executive branch officials …. White House chief of staff Andrew Card directs the shadow government from the White House, where he is immune from giving testimony to Congress (have we heard this before?). The shadow government is supposed to assume control of the government in case of a national emergency. Of course, this shadow government consists of one branch only, the executive branch. …. Congress has not sanctioned the shadow government, nor were members of Congress even made aware of its existence until the story was leaked in March 2002. This shadow government has been described as an ‘indefinite precaution,’ which can mean anything. While a few newspaper stories appeared in March 2002, very little new information has been reported since then. The shadow government is presumed to continue its operation outside of congressional oversight." (pages 78-79) Chapter 4 in John Dean’s book is titled "Secret Government." On pages 101-105, he details "Cheney’s Shadow National Security Council." Dean quotes the New Republic’s saying that, "Cheney’s office came to be viewed as the administration’s neocons sanctuary." President Bush’s NSC staff referred to Cheney’s operation as "the shadow government," because it was "informally integrated (with) its own agenda as well as the power to realize it through the vice president’s clout. It is a secret government – beyond the reach of Congress, and everyone else as well." Thus, when we consider the vice president’s claim that his office is not bound by the law, it is important to consider the source of his beliefs. Is it because he did not learn enough in junior high school social studies to know that the OVP is indeed part of the executive branch? Or is it more likely that he believes that he has an authority that is beyond the Constitution of the United States, and that the congress lacks the authority to even question his secret kingdom? If the Constitution of the United States is to mean anything in the future, then surely Congress must impeach Dick Cheney today.

Message to the Grass Roots

{1} "Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research. And when you see that you’ve got problems, all you have to do is examine the historic method used all over the world by others who have problems similar to yours. Once you see how they got theirs straight, then you know how to get yours straight." -- Malcolm X; 11-10-63; King Solomon Baptist Church, Detroit. In the past two weeks, I have had phone calls from two democratic groups, asking me for another donation. Since 2000, I had increased my number of democratic groups and individual candidates that I have donated to. That was especially true in 2006. I am not foolish enough to think that my individual contributions is of great significance; rather, I recognize that my contribution is important in the sense that it is part of the grass roots democratic movement. In the 2006 elections, the American public – especially the grass roots – made a clear statement about the Bush-Cheney military occupation of Iraq. The democrats won majorities in both the House and Senate. Yet since taking power over the institutions that the Constitution tasks with the control of the nation’s purse strings, they have given this administration a huge surge in funds, which allows the president to increase the number of troops and the level of death and destruction in Iraq. Thus, when asked for further donations, I made it clear that I will not give so much as a penny to any politician , or group that funds politicians, that has betrayed the core values of the progressive grass roots that helped bring that democratic majority to power. I’m still a democrat: I’m a grass roots progressive who believes strongly in the Constitution of the United States of America. I will donate my money and invest my time in the campaigns of those politicians who I believe share those same values. {2} "I say again, I’m not anti-Democrat …. I’m just questioning their sincerity, and some of the strategy that they’ve been using on our people by promising them promises they don’t intend to keep. …But it is true – you put the Democrats first and the Democrats put you last. Look at the way it is. What alibis do they use, since they control Congress and the Senate? What alibi do they use when you and I ask, ‘Well, when are you going to keep your promise?’ … This is pitiful. But it’s not pitiful for us any longer …. It’s time now for you and me to become more politically mature and realize what the ballot is for; (and) what we’re supposed to get when we cast a ballot …" – Malcolm X; 4-3-64; Cory Methodist Church, Cleveland. Both of the people that I talked with on the telephone told me that they are having an increasing number of grass roots democrats refusing to give another penny to fund candidates who have voted to provide more money to fund the violent policies of this administration in Iraq. Both were decent and sincere democrats, who I am convinced share the progressive values of the democratic grass roots. But both had a job to do, and they attempted to use the pre-packaged talking points that those who want to avoid telling the truth about the war had prepared for them. But those talking points are meaningless when compared to the actions of those elected officials who funded the increase in violence in Iraq. When those people spoke of our "shared values" on social issues, I simply brought up LBJ’s progressive social values that were the foundation for his dream of a Great Society. But as LBJ would come to recognize, he could not afford to invest in the madness in Vietnam and in a sane domestic policy at the same time. While I did not care for Bill Clinton as an individual, it must be said that he had economic policies that gave the United States the ability to at least consider addressing our social problems. That opportunity evaporated when the US Supreme Court put George W. Bush in office. We know that from his first month in office, his administration began to focus its efforts on finding a way to occupy Iraq. And while this policy has benefited the very few, it has put this nation in debt to an extent that should be cause for concern for every rational person who cares about this nation’s future. When the people on the phone talked about how the democrats in Washington were actually positioning themselves to confront the president’s madness in September, I said that I refuse to allow that lie to go by without response. I am retired now, but I used to be part of a team who provided psychiatric "services" relating to the criminal justice system. When there were thugs who engaged in actions that put the community at risk, it would have been wrong for us to have given them more money to buy more weapons, and to pretend that we were actually engaged in a clever plan to confront their violence in the future. No, our responsibility was to confront the thug’s violent behaviors and to help coordinate a systematic response to protect the community. I couldn’t imagine calling people to ask to be rewarded if I had betrayed my duties in the manner that those politicians in Washington are. The two people I spoke with understood what I was saying. I think that they share the same progressive grass roots values as the people who went to the voting booth in 2006. And, again, both told me that they were hearing much the same thing from a lot of the people they were calling. {3} "Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check, the same old slavemaster today has Negroes who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, twentieth-century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, to keep us passive … It’s like when you go to the dentist, and the man’s going to take your tooth. You’re going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they’re not doing anything to you. So you sit there and because you’ve got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer – peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don’t know what’s happening." – Malcolm X; Message to the Grass Roots; 11-10-63; Detroit. The democrats in Washington have had control of both the House and Senate for 6 months. In those 6 months, they have spoken against the war, while taking actions that have increased the US military occupation of Iraq. Polls are indicating that the public is frustrated with the congress. The public isn’t turning against the progressive values of the democratic grass roots. They are upset because the politicians are not keeping the promises they made in 2006. As Malcolm said in Detroit, " they’re playing that old con game. One of them makes believe he’s for you, and he’s got it fixed where the other one is so tight against you, he never has to keep his promise." Now, isn’t that exactly what our modern Tom, the dental assistant, is telling you and I? That while the elected democrats aren’t being true to their word – much less to the Constitution – that if we don’t fund them, that we are actually supporting that republican who is so tight against us? We see the apologists for the "house" democrats making every excuse possible for not only their failure to take positive steps towards restoring our Constitutional democracy, but attempting to justify their support for the increased violence in Iraq. "They have a con game going on, a political con game, and you and I are in the middle," Malcolm told us. "It’s time for you and me to wake up and start looking at it like it is, and trying to understand it like it is. And then we can deal with it like it is." Invest your time and money in those democratic candidates who actually do those things that they say they are going to do. Don’t be fooled by the novocaine-peddlers, no matter if they are telling their lies on a cable news show, or on a progressive internet discussion site. The more we do this, the more we can expect the apologists to try to confuse and distort the issues, and to display the paternalistic attitude that grass roots activists don’t understand the "realities" of Washington, DC. But that’s okay – they are starting to get the message. The progressive grass roots can send a very powerful message by being very selective in which democrats they support.